In re Reno, Misc. No. 71-135.

• Decision Date: 15 September 1971
• Docket Number: Misc. No. 71-135.
• Citation: 331 F. Supp. 507
• Parties: Special Grand Jury Proceedings. In re Eugene S. RENO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

331 F. Supp. 507

Special Grand Jury Proceedings.

In re Eugene S. RENO.

Misc. No. 71-135.

United States District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D.

September 15, 1971.

Laurence Left, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Detroit, Mich., Atty. in Charge, Detroit Strike Force, for the Government.

Armand D. Bove, Harper Woods, Mich., for the witness Eugene s. Reno; Robert S. Harrison, Norman L. Lippitt, Detroit, Mich., of counsel.

MEMORANDUM

(Immunity Hearing)

THORNTON, District Judge.

The Government here seeks an order granting immunity to the witness, Eugene s. Reno, with respect to testimony the Government seeks to elicit from him before the Special Grand Jury for the Eastern District of Michigan, presently in session. The immunity sought is pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2514. Reno, a sergeant in the Detroit Police Department, through his counsel, in objecting to the offered immunity stated in his argument to the Court at the court hearing in this matter, as follows:

"* * * If this witness is ordered and compelled to testify before the Grand Jury, his testimony is taken by the Grand Jury, and he is immune from criminal prosecution, but under Section 3333 he is not immune to disciplinary action as a result of a resort issued by the Grand Jury at the expiration of its term or an extension of that term, to the Police Commissioner and to the public thereby recommending disciplinary action and removal from office as a police officer." (Tr. p. 4)

Some background of the situation here present is succinctly supplied in the Government's Memorandum in Support of the Validity of the Grant of Immunity to the Witness Eugene S. Reno. We quote the following four paragraphs:

"On May 6, 1971, a Special Grand Jury in the Eastern District of Michigan returned an indictment charging sixteen (16) members of the Detroit Police Department and eighteen (18) syndicated gamblers with engaging in a conspiracy to violate the anti-gambling statutes of the State of Michigan and obstructing the enforcement of said statutes in order to facilitate the operation of a gambling enterprise, all of which violated Federal law (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1955, 1511, 371 and 2).

On May 12, 13, and 14, 1971, fourteen (14) additional Police Officers, unindicted, appeared, pursuant to subpoenae, before the Grand Jury. In each case, the witness was asked about acquaintanceships, meetings, or conversations with named, known gamblers. Without exception, the witnesses declined to answer the questions on various grounds, including the peril of self-incrimination, the invalidity of the subpoena which brought them before the Grand Jury, and the right to have counsel at their side in the Grand Jury room during their examination.

Subsequently, Judge Philip Pratt, United States District Judge, was asked to rule on the issues raised by the witness's unwillingness to testify before the Grand Jury. Judge Pratt held that the invocation by the witnesses of their privilege of self-incrimination constituted a valid justification for declining to answer the questions. However, the remaining grounds asserted by them, the Court found to be without merit.

Thereafter, four (4) of the previously mentioned Police Officer witnesses were granted immunity from prosecution, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2514, and were directed by the District Court to testify in the Grand Jury. They each testified, without objection to the grant of immunity."

The Government has indicated that the issue here is one of first impression, Section 3333 having been in existence only since the enactment of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Neither counsel for the Government nor counsel for Reno has cited a case to the Court where Section 3333 was at issue vis-a-vis the Fifth Amendment. The Court has likewise been unable, despite considerable ble research, to find case law on this point involving Section 3333 or any comparable statutory reporting provision that might shed light by way of analogy. The trail doubles back again and again to Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 76 S.Ct. 497, 100 L.Ed. 511 (1956). The cases since Ullmann pay homage to...